posted                      

quote:

---

My question then begins to creep out and say that if they (ta-seti) engaged in campaigns and traded in goods such as leopard skin, ivory, gold and other minerals which would take man power and technologically advanced equipment to obtain this and if they were supposedly close to ta shemau ethnically and culturally then what is the chances of ta-shemau and ta seti joining together to conquer ta-meh and ta-nehesi(to control big trade spots, land occupation).

---

quote:

---

kathryn bard says that the area of lower nubia of the a group was inhospitable for big populous administrative functions to be carried out. Why then, if this is known, they dont assume that a military power such as described by the a group themselves(conquering ta shemau and ta tjmeh)would then actually move into territory that is more compliant to further advanments or benefits of the particular group.

---

quote:

---

Hence forth the a group disappearance into better cultivating land, leaving the area between 1st and 2nd cataracts

I mean where else would egypt find a military to conquer ta-meh or put down rebellions in the ta-seti/ta-sehesi regions. scholars mention the relationship of ta-seti and ta shemau so much, it makes me believe that they were the same

---

They overlap conceptually. Ta Shemu, Ta Seti, Nsu Biti, Resu, Nehesu, Ta Khent, Punt, Ta Neter, all reference the Upper Nile Valley in different social and political contexts that are not always clearly distinct or mutually exclusive.

The best example of this I know is from the 11 dynasty Prophesy of Neferti.

It refers to the rightful king of Km.t as someone who comes from Ta Seti.

Then a king will come from the South,
Ameny, the just)fied, by name,
Son of a woman of Ta-Seti, child of Upper Egypt.
He will take the white crown,
He will wear the red crown;
He will join the Two Mighty Ones.
http://ib205.tripod.com/prophecy_neferti.html

Which is it then...Ta Seti, or Upper Egypt?

After all, they are two completely different entities.

We know this because ws.t Egyptology says so.

Nevermind that the Km.t say otherwise - clearly and in plain text.

It has always been my opinion that many ws.t egyptologists know the truth about km.t.

They simply have a vested political and psychological interest in not admitting the truth.

The only other alternative is to believe that ws.t Egyptologist read the primary text, but are really really stupid, and can't understand what they are reading.

I don't believe that.

Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged |